gamegrene.com

My interpretation of (part of) DWHoward's rant is:

There is a player who isn't getting what they want out of the game. They're bored and they start acting up by designing and playing characters that are deliberately disruptive to the goals that the party is trying to achieve (kicking down all the doors in the dungeon, swearing at the king, etc). They defend their actions on the grounds that they are "roleplaying". The other players, who are taking the game more seriously, are getting increasingly irritated and aren't enjoying the game as much as they should.

A possible way of dealing with this is to foster an (old-fashioned) appreciation for the spoils of victory: immediate spoils like the treasure from a particular battle and the longer term rewards for success in the campaign goals. That should encourage players to play their characters to the best of their ability and pull together to achieve those goals.

========

This is not the way we've dealt with this sort of problem in my group. If the players are reasonable and the GM is able to exercise some authority then you can deal with players like this by taking them aside and talking to them. Find out what the problem is and deal with it. But judging from some of the posts above, some people aren't prepared to acknowledge that there is a problem. And talking hasn't always worked in my group, either.

Another solution is to leave it up to the characters to deal with it within the game. Tie up the annoying barbarian and dump him by the side of the road. Let the royal guard drag him off to prison and don't come to his aid. And if that player just generates another annoying character, do it to them again until they learn their lesson.

It sounds simple but it can lead to major disputes between players. Who is to decide what constitutes a "dumping" offence? And if the player takes a while to learn their lesson, what started as a nice friendly game can turn really nasty.

Is DWHoward's solution really the same thing as an obsession with "winning"? To get the rewards you have to "win" the battle or "win" the adventure, so I guess it does mean encouraging players to want to "win". But if winning means achieving the goals of the adventure, isn't it better that they want that anyway? And even in a game run along these lines, losing doesn't have to mean disaster. If you set things up so that winning is the carrot and losing means that you have to try another way, then you aren't forcing your players into a situation where they have to "always win".

Playing to win and roleplaying aren't mutually exclusive. They can be exactly the same thing, if your character is closely connected to the plot. It's a matter of setting your priorities, I guess, and each player can set their own independently. If there are rare conflicts between roleplaying and playing to win I don't think DWHoward is going to have any objection to someone who prioritises the roleplaying. However, if the conflicts are common then the chances are that you've created one of those annoying characters and perhaps you should re-think your character concept.

Firecat: Defend your concept or abandon it.

Nephandus: Eh? Perhaps I interpreted the esoteric comment "Such as always winning?" in a different way than you. Again, some pronouns might help us direct the arguments toward the proper sources. Although the order on the board has since switched, Coilean’s comment actually followed my post and quoted me, so I assumed it was directed to me, implying that my game depended on PCs always winning.

I held this to be a false argument, posited in place of my own point, then trumped by the same person who ventured it (aka straw man), as if I had made this argument. I never said PCs should always win, so I have no need to defend that point. I did say that players should TRY to achieve the challenges presented in scenarios. This does not assume victory though, and if it did, I don’t think it would be a very good game.

On the other hand, Coilean’s elaboration did indicate a reasonable way to continue to a plot when players miss a key scene or fail to win it, thereby missing out on vital plot information. It is good advice, it just doesn’t seem to engage anything I said in the post to which Coilean seemed to be responding.

Colin: But judging from some of the posts above, some people aren't prepared to acknowledge that there is a problem.

Nephandus: Agreed, the disruptive player (and other annoying ones I've dealt with) regarded their role-playing as a personal artistic exercise, somewhat independent of the social or game context. Their elitist attitudes about their "art" afforded them the ego to continue doing what they were doing even when they knew everyone else was upset with them. In fact, the worst DM asked us specifically before the game what we hated as players and then tried to use those things (ie psionics, loose tactical rules in combat, real life extrapolations on infravision) I think he did it to challenge himself - to take what we hated and, through his auteur DMing skill, try to make us like them. When we didn't, he tried even harder. When we still didn't, he got angry with us. It's hard to ask someone to compromise on art. Which is why, in this group activity, I choose not to frame it as art, though at times it can be artistic.

'This is not the way we've dealt with this sort of problem in my group. If the players are reasonable and the GM is able to exercise some authority then you can deal with players like this by taking them aside and talking to them. Find out what the problem is and deal with it. But judging from some of the posts above, some people aren't prepared to acknowledge that there is a problem. '

The spirit of the arguments against this seem to be that, if the player's claim that they are 'roleplaying' has any validity, everyone else (this being an RPG) is roleplaying as well, and so *real* roleplayers wouldn't think of it as problematic.

And that such a 'problem player', by extension, is not really roleplaying, just claiming it as an excuse.

And that Dwhoward, in conclusion, is attacking the wrong area - roleplaying isn't the root of the problem, people who CLAIM to be roleplaying, when they don't even have that mitigating excuse, ARE.

Yes. I suspect this is because most players rightfully want to have a unique contribution to the action. Some players, quite a lot actually, seem to look at the recommended races and classes as examples of what NOT to play, as if playing some obscure critter or class is more imaginative than playing a "standard" elf, or swordfighter. I was amazed with all the new 3e combinations available to regular classes, that one player marvelled at them all, and then promptly picked up the 3e monster manual to see "what else" he could be, before he'd even tried a recommended character class.

I could understand this rationale if there weren't a lot of options within classes and races. But I don't really follow it when once argues that one mythical creature is "more imaginative" than another. In older editions, these critters frequently unbalanced games, making one player more able, or less able, to contribute to the action than the other players.

Usually, I hold to a "core books only please" rule, to avoid dealing with players who go on buying sprees, poring through obscure tomes to look for advantages over players who haven't bought them. Given their motivations, these same players tend to interpret rules rather generously for their PC's as they explain the way it works to their DM, who may not have read the book.

I prefer to keep rules simple and specific, with as few as possible. One set of rules for all, to which everyone agrees beforehand.

'What, specifically, are you objecting to in what I said? The only thing that is clear is that you object to something I said. What, exactly, is the point you believe I must defend?'

I object to you introducing a concept and then insisting it isn't valid when someone else uses it to say something you weren't trying to say, let alone something you disagree with.

'It is usually bad form to include a decision point in an adventure that depends on players making only one possible decision.'

This was used to ask 'Such as winning?', and that question is entirely valid within the context of the rant we are discussing.

'Initially, I saw no need to elaborate on Coilean's point, which was an apparent straw man objection unrelated to what I wrote (and as yet, I have not been shown that it wasn't a straw man, though it may be a simple misunderstanding). '

Your interpretations aren't very generous, I must note. Has it ever occurred to you that assuming the other person is rational, and thereby capable of a rational discussion, would LEAD to a more rational (and fruitful) discussion?

Instead you make up long lists of every instance you can single out where they have made a technical boo-boo. These are still, technically, boo-boo's, but they're ones that don't matter. Take, for example, this snippet from the July 15th post:

'"They get no joy from seeing their PCs go up in levels or gain magic or gain status because the PC is not them."

That's a very selfish point of view to be inflicting on us roleplayers. Don't we have the right to enjoy seeing the fortune of others? Aren't we credited with any imagination, the right, as any human being might do, to look into the mirrored window of the rich and famous, and pretend, just for a moment, that we were in their shoes?'

It IS a very selfish point of view to be inflicting on those roleplayers, true. And a boo-boo, as such. But only in the technical sense. If nothing had been added to challenge Dwhoward's point, Coilean would have been left as complaining that 'Hey, we're very selfish, and I hate you for pointing it out!'; as it was, an address WAS made to that point.

It may be rude to point out deplorable qualities in other people, but that doesn't alter the validity of those statements. When are you going to stop focusing on the meanness of people to point out how you're less than perfect, and begin actually addressing what people are saying about this? Lack of denial is tantamount to an admittal, and you ain't denying nuthin' by whining about it.

My objection was that by quoting me and anticipating this example “such as winning?” he attributed that point to me –

To clarify further, if his statement was directed toward the general column, why did he quote me specifically?

Again, nothing in what he said in his argument seemed wrong or unworthy of attention. It just seemed wrong to pose it as counterargument to my examples, if that is what he was doing in quoting me.

'Well, this must be embarrassing. You see, I never said:'

WELL DUH!!!

I as much as implied that in my reply DIRECLY FOLLOWING THAT QUOTE:

It IS a very selfish point of view to be inflicting on those roleplayers, true. And a boo-boo, as such. But only in the technical sense. If nothing had been added to challenge Dwhoward's point, Coilean would have been left as complaining that 'Hey, we're very selfish, and I hate you for pointing it out!'; as it was, an address WAS made to that point.

'Again, nothing in what he said in his argument seemed wrong or unworthy of attention. It just seemed wrong to pose it as counterargument to my examples, if that is what he was doing in quoting me.'

Well, to point out what generally constitutes a full logic error, quoting someone does not have the sole implication of disagreeing with them.

In fact, to see it that way, when what was SAID made (by your own admission) sense, strongly implies you were pre-disposed to look for that in the first place. Fair enough, since there HAS been a debate going on in this forum :) But if you wanted to come to a satisfactory conclusion, as opposed to just furthering argument, it might benefit everyone to try and find points to agree on.

My point, is that invalidating the personal attacks for BOTH sides, and counting up the actual logic so far, would leave some people behind, because they've been entirely too focused on attacking the personal attacks, and using that as an excuse for ignoring the logic.

"The challenge was to Dwhoward, and obviously to highlight Dwhoward's illogic in refusing to give specific examples. Your doing so does not help his case, nor weaken the challenge against him."

You object to me commenting on a challenge that was directed to dmhoward on a public board. How then, do you justify commenting to me on the relevancy of Coilean's response to my post?

Also, you say:
"It may be rude to point out deplorable qualities in other people, but that doesn't alter the validity of those statements."

How then, is the validity of my specific examples invalidated? Going by what you said, surely it doesn't matter who shows these examples of ad homenins, or for what purpose. As you say it shouldn't alter the validity of those statements. They are what they are. Coilean had the last word on that matter and we didn't need to address it again until you brought it up. Frankly, I'm content to leave it the way it is.

Firecat :"that among all the selectively placed 'boo-boo' items, among (as Dwhoward just implied) the full context . . . there were points made. Rebuttals against other points. I was able to illustrate that there were not just the personal attacks around here - but also logic used, which has yet to be addressed."

Nephandus: Well, I'm not convinced about the soundness of a lot of logic I've seen here, but then, we needn't be so formal in this kind of discussion. I only raised the point of logic in reference to that poster, because he so often raised it with others (frequently innappropriately).

Ad homenin fallacy is particularly bad form though, because so often it comes in the form of a perjorative personal attack. These attacks do not engage the point and are often intended to engage their target at an emotional level rather than on a rational one - to "get their goat." If someone wishes to pepper their otherwise airtight argument with ad homenin fallacies, then they reap what they sew. It is perfectly reasonable to respond with the same discourtesy, and not engage them in discussion at all.

In your discussion of "boo boo items", or the fallacies I cited, you did not point out what arguments still needed to be addressed (despite the fact that I asked you to).

Since you went to the bother of going through all those posts and collecting all the personal attacks, I suppose I can do something similar. *yawn* But I'm much more lazy, so I'll just look at a single post, and surgically remove all the points:

'There are ways of thinking for which these problems don't even exist at all, or aren't problems.'

Could be taken as a personal attack, by implying that anyone who DIDN'T see these ways of thinking, is a blind fool. But it comes across more as 'the 'problems' you see aren't as common as you think'.

Translation: continuity CAN be maintained, by staying true to roleplaying, and shifting characters in and out of the campaign as they dictate, not the player.

'Why develop over time just to correct disadvantages and find more subtle layers on the PC's personality? Why not -form- more personality, why not use the events of the campaign to -create- changes? Or would you argue that people can never change, will always remain the same person throughout their lives? Why correct personality "flaws", when they can be turned into strengths?'

Translation: it may be hard because there are other, easier, ways - which still satisfy the roleplaying spirit. Also a rebuttal against the 'sole reason for doing this IS: ' assumption, and the 'digging inward, not building outward' assumption.

'Otherwise, my condolences for the players you have to deal with :)'

Translation: not everyone is like this, the players being described sound like they're near the bottom end of the ladder.

'It could become the start of a whole new roleplaying point, or the continuation of an old. Your best friend betrayed you, your family was murdered, and everything you'd ever loved has turned to ashes - those who still care about you [the other PC's?] then have to deal with trying to return hope to you, heal your soul - a decidedly different situation from that which most adventuring parties deal with, wouldn't you say?'

Translation: destroying the whole campaign only happens with a group that shuns roleplaying 'on adventure' to the extent of not caring about their fellow PC's as characters (if they are no longer suitable for adventuring, let them go away and find another character: don't fix the problem, avoid it).

'As the boundaries of roleplaying are pushed, "extreme" becomes constantly redefined.'

Translation: people think of themselves as extreme roleplayers because, once, that's what they were. But because they were given that title for what they did, not did what they did to EARN the title, they were not interested in changing to stay on the extreme edge. As time passes, they remember how they were once labeled, or how the label was applied to something which they were like, and don't replace it with the new definition.

'If you look at the WhiteWolf community, yes. [Sorry - bad joke.] If you look to those who are the most chic and elite, yes. But you have to consider those who aren't, to be fair. Are you going to condemn science for the nuclear physicists and rocket scientists? The stuck-up ones who snub you for not understanding their language? Start out with the roleplaying you can tolerate, and expand from there.'

A rebuttal against the 'some roleplayers I know are chic and elite, therefore ALL roleplayers are chic and elite' presumption.

'How much is "a lot"? Am I an artist if I don't care the floor in a museum is unswept, when I am there to look at the painting and sculptures? Am I an artist to ignore the fact I don't have a third fork, when the meal is delicious? Am I an artist for failing to give a game a bad review based on the graphics alone, when I bought it for the gameplay?'

A challenge to the 'lot' of players that Dwhoward claims exist; a mockery of the 'art' claim.

'So, you're saying that, "most people" do not possess the ability to both be artistic, and enjoy the game? Well, if Dhoward says so, who are we to argue?'

Can be taken as a personal attack, in the sense of sarcasm. But it again calls into question the definition of 'art' and the terms of 'enjoyment', and challenges the statistics Dwhoward invokes.

'While we're on the subject, can you define this "like art" phrase which you keep on throwing around in varying [generally with derogatory connotations] forms?'

A challenge to the non-specific forms of 'art', and their usage in a solely derogatory fashion. Indirectly, as such, a challenge towards whether or not the right word is being used.

'In other words, they enjoy more than one thing, which conversely, means that their "extremism" is in only enjoying the one thing. I don't see how this is so, but hey, by all means, if you are, stick with it! Just because you learn to enjoy other stuff, doesn't mean you have to abandon what brought you to this game, or what you're currently enjoying, whichever it is.'

Translation: the definition is called into doubt, but if it is true, being extreme is good.

'Listen to this. " ... is THE WAY" [emphasis mine]'

A reformation of the challenge towards Dwhoward's rant being applicable to ALL games. Dwhoward amended that earlier, clarifying that his only intent was to help those who encountered problems he described. The current issue appears to be whether his rant is the ONLY solution which can apply to those games.

'Do you mean "more enjoyable gaming" in the sense that "gaming is more enjoyable THIS way", or "you can enjoy gaming in MORE ways"? Somehow, I suspect the former. Mainly because I've been arguing for the latter quite some time now, and you continue to ignore this.'

Possibly a dig towards Dwhoward's practice of ignoring certain points; but certainly still valid as an indication of what his definition is.

'We enjoy these activities so much because we are doing both at the same time.'

Easily supported by other people's posts. Yup, this seems to qualify as a 'point'.

'You're telling us to remove the roleplaying from our gaming; to only do one at a time.'

A paraphrasement of Dwhoward's article and several subsequent posts (also by Dwhoward). Not much here of a personal attack, unless you count 'throwing the argument into a bad light'.

'This is not the way to "return" to enjoying more from our role-playing game.'

Translation: Going from enjoying both to only enjoying one, means you enjoy less. To 'return' implies you are in the place of not enjoying more from the role-playing game, currently, and will be there once you 'return'. Right.

'Translation: continuity CAN be maintained, by staying true to roleplaying, and shifting characters in and out of the campaign as they dictate, not the player.'

Seems what I was quoting got lost. Here it is:

'So she stayed behind in her home, when they passed by. I developed a new character, and was still playing him years later. My "retired" PC wasn't gone - she just had no reason to be involved in the current adventures. Coming back later was not a problem.'

'This is an allegation or an opinion, but you have not supported it. From this point forward, I will respond to points you say that I find coherant, clearly expressed, on topic, and which are supported. '

I *know* I've seen that attitude before. And, to quote an earlier poster, I didn't think common sense needed to be supported.

But here it is, for all the world to see, collectively assembled in one neat pile:

---

Straw man. In the example given, touching the statue had nothing to do with winning or losing; it was a minor decision along the road.

---

I held this to be a false argument, posited in place of my own point, then trumped by the same person who ventured it (aka straw man), as if I had made this argument.

---

Initially, I saw no need to elaborate on Coilean's point, which was an apparent straw man objection unrelated to what I wrote (and as yet, I have not been shown that it wasn't a straw man, though it may be a simple misunderstanding).

---

My objection was that by quoting me and anticipating this example “such as winning?” he attributed that point to me – as if I suggested that adventures with railroad plots depend on characters winning, or perhaps that plots that have decision points depend on characters winning. It really isn’t clear.

---

My objection was that by quoting me and anticipating this example “such as winning?” he attributed that point to me –

To clarify further, if his statement was directed toward the general column, why did he quote me specifically?

Again, nothing in what he said in his argument seemed wrong or unworthy of attention. It just seemed wrong to pose it as counterargument to my examples, if that is what he was doing in quoting me.

---

Substituting in a new argument in place of the one you are responding is a textbook straw man logic fallacy.

---

---

Yet NOWHERE have you provided any evidence that this 'straw man' actually exists. In defense, you have pointed out how you might have interpreted it as such; but regardless of how you *might* have interpreted it, the fact remains that you *did* interpret it in such a way as to attribute argumentative and aggressive to Coilean.

I appreciate the agreements you *have* found, but your choice to embrace the 'we disagree' viewpoint and stick with it, to the extent of reprimanding me for 'rubbing his nose in it', must be reprimanded as well.

By your denial to accept that you have made an error, you only compound the error, and invite further reprisals.

To clarify and elaborate further:

The error in judgement I feel you made, was to insist that the building of a point on something you said* was made with the intent to create an argument.

Not, my rebuke was in the form of insisting you made that with the intent to create an argument, which is how it could also be read :)

*In future, would you prefer that we paraphrased your points, without giving credit for them to you? Normally, the 'quote' serves as a sort of bibliography, showing what inspired anything following (true, this happens almost exclusively in the case of questions**, which are inviting the reader to post with their own answers).

** Wait, that WAS a question . . . damn.

"Coilean: Such as always winning?

Nephandus: Straw man."

Hardly.

I asked a question, and then gave my answer to it. My answer would be: "I avoid the possibility of conflict."

It seems patently obvious to me that you are 1) overly impressed with the loose definitions of various debate terms you have found, and 2) looking for them everywhere. Well, surprise - what you look for, you find. Even when it isn't really there.

As for personal attacks, the question isn't disregarding them; it's what the cogent points of debate are. And, where Dhoward made any attacks, I [on occasion] responded in kind - but, I -did not take this as excuse to discontinue to debate-. In other words, I didn't take the cop-out which Dhoward did [it was a cop-out when he did it, and it's one when you're doing it now] of refusing to acknowledge a valid point because there are any offensive connotations in the same post. I suppose we should ignore everything [insert name of famous and well-respected person] said. S/he can't have been a perfect saint, must have insulted somebody. And YES, Dhoward has been greatly offensive. What's the matter, can't pick out those personal attacks as easily. Here's a clue:

Telling a gamer "All gamers are idiots.", is no less offensive than telling that gamer "You are an idiot.". In fact, it's more so, because it encourages anyone with an ounce of fairness, to defend the group against unfounded accusations and broad-sweeping generalizations. I used the term "gamer" and the insult "idiot" because they are generic enough, and apply to both of us - no wriggling out on a technicality of "irrelevancy; I agree". I do not purport this to be something Dhoward has written; I -do- purport it to be an excellent example of the point I was making at the end of the last paragraph.

Well, I don't think I can "misunderstanding-proof" my post any better than that. Let's see how it's taken ;)

-Coilean mac Caiside

Well, we have had a very satisfying discussion. Nobody could say that there wasn't anything to talk about!

Hopefully, all this discussion will spur people to think critically about their games and where the enjoyment comes from. I hope that this will lead to some improvement in the games that I've seen and a reduction in the number of dysfunctional players and GMs that are around and, finally, lead to more overall enjoyable games.

Your mileage may vary but, like I said in my article, a wide variety of games could benefit by considering the things that I've talked about. Despite its current popularity, role-playing may not be the Holy Grail of RPGs for your game. You'd be wise to consider all the factors that can make a game fun and, for each factor, at what point it moves from being fun to being artificial and unenjoyable.

'and a reduction in the number of dysfunctional players and GMs that are around'

Do you mean that term in the conventional sense?

Or maybe they just need to find a campaign in which they are appreciated. Gee, would be nice if they knew whether or not they were in such a campaign before several sessions elapsed. Maybe if everyone had a nice talk about it . . . ?

Talking would also help, as you said. Some players can be talked to and some cannot (a la Nephandus' friend).

Sure, if possible, talking before you start the campaign. But some players are not self-aware or maybe the GM does not have time. Sometimes, it is just not possible.

I don't think that anyone has suggested that people should not have a fireside chat about the kind of game they want to play if it will benefit them. It is just a matter of most people not being self-aware enough to know the kind game they play, or the kind they want to play.

In my case, we twice wrapped a game short to discuss the problems we saw developing once we got going (who knew?). We also had a great chat in a real life bar with all the group to discuss the problem. In each case, the problematic player held to his guns, sure that everyone else was wrong in what they liked. Eventually, he agreed to try it "our way" each time. Each time he slipped back into his old habits as soon as anything interesting and stressful like a combat happened in the game.

Either the participants collaborate or there is no game. As another experienced player told me one day, "There is no such thing as a player or DM who grudgingly decides to collaborate." If collaborating isn't natural for them, they will slip back into what's natural for them, no matter what they tell you out of game. They will attempt to maneuver the other participants into passive witnesses to their construction.

At least, that's what I've seen.

Why do some GM's ask for criticism, then? Or for feedback after any session? What's wrong with asking them what they want from a game, and allowing them to go into as much detail as they feel capable of? I'm sure enough meterial for an entire article could be found easily in describing why people wouldn't feel good about telling anything in much detail, but ways to ask them for more detail without presuming it's there.

So, is there anything there worth writing about or not?

I meant writing a new rant/article about . . . oh, just go look it up ;p

Scroll backwards until you come a signature of 'coilean mac caiside', and read that.

I cannot comment on FireCat's suggestion.

People often play dumb because they think that it is more realistic and that the DM wants them to play that way.

Many players have gotten away from caring about levels. They don't care if their PC is pushed around. As the attitude becomes more popular, campaigns, regardless of any other factor (such as the GM's ability), become shorter-lived.

Nick's point is well reasoned and agreeable to me. I don't see it anything that he wrote that contradicts what I am saying.

Role-playing is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with (or become a substitute for) tactics and strategies inside the adventure. To wit, I wrote, "When you are succeeding and have figured out all the riddles and cleaned out the dungeon, then role-play. It's the icing, not the cake." By this, I mean that if the PCs are consistently blowing away monsters and achieving the adventure goal, then, sure, they should add role-playing on top, inside the "dungeon".

I'd give extra points for juggling an interesting personality while blowing away the dungeon. However, I would give no points for having an interesting personality while flubbing the dungeon. I'd encourage GMs to use role-playing as a bonus, only given if the adventure is a success tactically and strategically.

But, in my experience, most players cannot both think well and role-play at the same time. Often, players choose to either focus on tactics/strategy or playing a personality in the "dungeon". So, you have to choose. Is your game better served by a PC who displays an interesting personality but consistently fails to win combats and solve riddles? Or is your game better served by a PC who is somewhat drier and less dimensional but wins combats and "solves" your adventures satisfactorily?

If I must choose, the latter makes a better game. As I see it, role-playing games have been decimated by the former approach which still remains fashionable.

Thanks for suggesting the source of "Knowledge: Monsters". I mistakenly took a self-described expert at his word and have long regretted. I should have verified it myself. But, admittedly, I haven't verified this new information, either.

I wouldn't say we all need to play tacticians, but tactics and strategy help a party survive and prosper. They are especially useful in combat, or in a "dungeon", or a space station, military encampment, secret spy lair, whatever.

But a little role playing is always fun too. In the spy lair example, the witty banter with the evil maniac is a key genre trope, without which the game would be lacking something IMO. Also if the game is a detective type whodunnit, there will be lots of RP needed to interview witnesses and put together the clues.

Mostly I think it depends on the group, some really go for the acting, some for the wargaming, some for both, and our hobby can accomodate them all.

My guys go for tactics, but mix in a bit of roleplay when the circumstances permit (though the roles are pretty much "Tony as a dwarf" or "Pete as a barbarian"). My favorite had to be the pre-adventure meeting in the tavern scene (which I expected to play out in 10 minutes) that lasted 1.5 hrs real time, due to extensive IC introductions and conversations. Less action took place that session than I expected, but everybody loved the game.

And that is the point IMO, that everybody have fun, otherwise they won't keep coming back.

John